Application fee for amended application - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Forgot to mention that application has yet to be determined.

Sounds like a pretty significant change to me, and I had always thought that changing the redline meant a new application. Or in this case mabe a new application for the extra 5 hectares?

No offence, but where in the regulations does it say anywhere that changing a red edge requires a new application? I had this with my LPA last year( i was making the red edge smaller) and they said the same thing ( they thought it did but couldn`t find any part of the regulations to back that view up) They backed off......If you find something let me know and I will stand corrected. Let me give you an alternative viewpoint, you can amend a red edge provided a) it doesn`t adversely affect the LPA ( fees) b) provided it does not adversely affect interested parties (consultees/neighbours) Sounds to me like it fails the first test

As far as I'm aware the regs don't allow for asking for more money part way through an application. In fact they say you can't. I suppose the point is whether, looking at it reasonably, you can justify asking for a new application on the bais of the changes proposed. 5ha sounds a lot and as Chris says, it may effect other neighbouring landowners. On the basis that the development seems to be of significant scale, is it EIA development? If so, do they need to test a new set of parameters? If you can justify a new application, the next question is whether they would benefit from a free go under article 8 of the regs. Is it on the same site, is it of the same character or description? In my view, if as an authority you are having go back to square one in terms of having to do all the work again on the basis that it's a different application (not just an amended one), you should be justified in asking for a new fee.

 I don't actually see that reducing the red line triggers a new application, as it does not have any process (eg ownership certificate or fee) implications, and any impact is likely to be reduced.  But I'd argue that extending the red line will have both process and/or impact implications.

To answer the question, is it written down somewhere that extending the red line always  means a new application ? I doubt it., but the test about materially changing the character of the development does appear quite frequently,  (it was in Circular 22/80).  I would say that a 10% or 5 hectare extension, is very likely to materially change the character of the development, and trigger a new application. 

Would be interested to know from Jon, how this is resolved.

Sorry for the late input. The way I see this is that by extending the red line, you are defining a different application site. When an application is made, a declaration is signed to state that all the information in the form (trees, drainage, certificates, etc) is correct. I wonder how comfortably (or not) the change to the extent of a site sits with this.

As to the fee, Circular 04/08 is only guidance. Legislative provisions of the DMPO would override this. The application site defines the extent of the application, which in this case also affects the fee due. Article 10(2)(e) of DMPO requires the fee "in respect of the application" to be paid for it to be valid, and Article 10(5) allows for the LPA to "invalidate" the application where it is found that something required by Article 10(2) is missing. You might have a reasonable arguement to say that the fee is incomplete here.

I consider the intention of the Circular is where an LPA requests changes (such as increasing the number of dwellings within a site to increase density), then it is unreasonable to then also command a fee. Where the applicant wishes to effectively add in "phase 2" of a development to the original application, I believe the LPA is within its rights to say it needs to be a separate or wholly revised application. Indeed you would not get a "free go" if the red line was larger on a resubmission - you would pay a wholly fresh fee for the lot.

Finally, adding to Chris' comments above, I would say that both (a) and (b) are compromised in that it could affect other interested parties and also affects the LPA in terms of the correct fee.